Judgment : R. SUDHAKAR, J. The Insurance Company and the owner of the vehicle have filed the present appeal against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal Subordinate Judges Court, Villupuram) in M.C.O.P. No. 90 of 2004 dated 13.4.2006. 2. Thecase of the respondent claimant is that of 25.1.2004, at about 11.00 a.m., when he was walking on the Ulundurpet Main Road, Thiyagadurugam, he was knocked down by an auto bearing Registration No. TN-32-X-4690, owned by one Kumar and driven by its Driver Murugan. It is stated that in the accident, the injured claimant suffered grievous injuries, namely, fracture of the fibula and tibia of left leg. According to the claimant, he was taken to the Private Hospital, namely, Viswashan Clinic, Thiyagadurugam on 25.1.2004 and then referred to Government Hospital at Kallakurichi. The Wound certificate is dated 1.2.2004 which is seven days after the date of accident, i. e., 25.1.2004 and has been marked as Exhibit A-3. The F.I.R. Exhibit A-1 in this case was lodged on 1.2.2004. The Accident Register which was recorded by the Government Hospital, Kallakurichi has been issued on 1.2.2004, which is Exhibit A-11. On this premise, the claim petition was filed for a compensation of Rs. 3,74,000/-. 3. The claimant examined himself as P.W.1. i. e. Investigating Officer, a senior Assistant of the Insurance Company was examined as R.W.1. 4. Thespecific case of the claimant in Sl. No. 23 of the Claim Petition is, that he was taken to the private hospital for grievous injuries suffered and thereafter referred to Government Hospital, Kallakurichi. A counter and additional counter was filed by the Insurance Company. In the additional counter, the specific case of the Insurance Company is that the accident in question did not take place on 25.1.2004. Paragraph-4 of the Additional counter affidavit reads as follows: “This respondent states that the petitioner has not sustained any injuries on the date of the allied accident, i. e., 25.1.2004. But subsequently on 1.2.2004 the petitioner might have sustained injuries somewhere else an1 now preferred this petition far compensation, as if those injuries were sustained by him only on 25.1.2004. If really the petitioner sustained injuries on 25.1.2004 he would have admitted in the hospital on that day itself and the FIR would have been registered on 25.1.2004 itself. But subsequently on 1.2.2004 the petitioner might have sustained injuries somewhere else an1 now preferred this petition far compensation, as if those injuries were sustained by him only on 25.1.2004. If really the petitioner sustained injuries on 25.1.2004 he would have admitted in the hospital on that day itself and the FIR would have been registered on 25.1.2004 itself. The delay of 8 days in preferring the FIR and admission in the Government Hospital, Kallakurichi itself would go to show that the present claim is a false claim.” 5. The Tribunal referring to Exhibit A1 - F.I.R, and Exhibit A-8 - the Certified copy of Register for summary trials in STC 766 of 2004 of Judicial Magistrate, Kallakurichi and also Exhibit A-3 - the wound certificate issued by the Government Hospital, came to the conclusion that the auto driver was rash and negligent in driving, causing the accident and the insurer of the vehicle is liable to compensate for the injuries said to have been caused by the auto driven by its driver, Murugan. Therefore, the compensation was awarded. 6. The present appeal has been filed challenging the finding of the Tribunal on negligence and the liability of the Insurance Company as insurer of the vehicle, stating that on 25.1.2004, the vehicle in question was not involved in the accident. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant Insurance Company vehemently contended that even as per the pleadings of the claimant, he was treated at the Viswashan Clinic at Thiyagadurugam on 25.1.2004. It is only after seven days he was shifted to the Government Hospital, Kallakurichi. Pointing out to the pleadings of the parties before the Tribunal, he submitted that, if the claim of the injured claimant is to foe accepted, there has to be some material to support his claim that the accident had occurred on 25.1.2004 and he suffered injuries and he was treated for the injuries suffered on that date. He specifically pleaded that the recording of the injury in the Government Hospital is fresh bleeding on 1.2.2004. If the accident had happened on 25.1.2004 of pleaded, then the recording of injury in Government Hospital belies the claimants statement. He specifically pleaded that the recording of the injury in the Government Hospital is fresh bleeding on 1.2.2004. If the accident had happened on 25.1.2004 of pleaded, then the recording of injury in Government Hospital belies the claimants statement. In the absence of any such material to support the claimants case and in view of the specific averment of the Insurance Company in the counter and additional counter affidavit that no such incident had happened, the claim ought to have boon rejected. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent claimant, on the contrary, submitted that the material evidence with regard to the treatment given to the claimant in the private clinic before shifting to Kallakurichi Govt. Hospital was not filed. He, however, submitted that in the wound certificate Exhibit A-3, it has been stated that the accident had occurred on 25.1.2004. He relied on the photocopy of a register of summary trial in STC 766 of 2004 dated 22.4.2004, where the auto driver Thirumurugan pleaded guilty. However, in the typed copy of the document produced, the vehicle number involved in the accident is not there. 9. On going through the pleadings of either side and the documentary evidence adduced, it is clear that the claimant claims that he had suffered injuries in an accident which happened on 25.1.2004. But the first recorded evidence with regard to the accident and injury is based on F.I.R. and the wound certificate, Exhibit A-1 and Exhibit A-3 respectively. The F.I.R. and wound certificate are dated 1.2.2004, i. e., seventh day from the date of accident. The appellant Insurance Company seriously disputes the occurrence of accident far the various reasons stated above. It is for the claimant to show some material as to the treatment given to him on the date of accident, (i. e.) on 25.1.2004 which apparently is serious in nature. The counsel for the appellant Insurance Company relied upon the earlier decision of this Court in C.M.A. No. 1016 of 2006 dated 19.7.2006 wherein it is stated as follows: “On going through the contentions made by the counsel appearing on either side, in view of the contradictory nature of the evidence of two persons regarding the nature of the accident, the question that has to be considered is whether any such accident did happen on 20.1.2001 and if so, whether the claimant had taken any treatment on that day. Going by the nature of the injury, supported by wound certificate and disability certificate, namely fracture on the right fore-arm and right wrist, which is said to be immobilised, necessarily there must be some evidence to show that the treatment was given to the claimant on 20.1.2001. Learned counsel for the claimant would submit that there are material evidence to support such claim. If the Insurance Company had disputed the accident vehemently, as of today the claimant would have taken steps to produce the medical records and evidence.” The Tribunal has not adverted to the issue regarding the recording of injury in the Govt. Hospital on 1.2.2004 for an accident which happened on 25.1.2004. 10. The counsel for the respondent claimant therefore submitted that an endeavour will be made to verify and submit before the Tribunal, the treatment given to the injured claimant between 25.1.2004 upto 1.2.2004. He stated that if an opportunity is given, the claimant will be able to establish the bona fide of the claim petition. 11. The preliminary issue that has to be decided by the Tribunal is whether the accident had occurred on 25.1.2004 and in that accident whether the claimant had suffered the injuries in question or not. The parties pray for letting in evidence in support of their case and the claimant in particular prayed for time to produce medical records of the private hospital. The Tribunal will have to go into the proceedings and the records and the order passed in STC 766 of 2004 dated 22.4.2004, which has been relied upon by the claimant to prove that the accident happened on 25.1.2004 and that the driver of the vehicle pleaded guilty. 12. Insuch circumstances,- the award of the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for reconsideration of the claim afresh on merits. The claimant will be entitled to let in evidence with regard to the treatment given between the period 25.1.2004 to 1.2.2004 together with any relevant material records in support of the accident and the treatment given to him. Such exercise shall be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The deposit already made shall remain with the Tribunal until final disposal. Such exercise shall be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The deposit already made shall remain with the Tribunal until final disposal. It is made clear that the Tribunal will go into the claim on the merits of the rival claim uninfluenced by any of the observations of this Court. 13. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed by way of remand. Consequently, M.P. Nos. 1 and 2 of 2007 is closed. No costs.